ML18129A011

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
NRC-2018-000189 - Resp 1 - Final
ML18129A011
Person / Time
Issue date: 05/03/2018
From: Stephanie Blaney
Information Services Branch
To: Tarver J
- No Known Affiliation
Shared Package
ML18129A007 List:
References
FOIA, NRC-2018-000189
Download: ML18129A011 (30)
v • d • e


Text

"

NRC FORM 464 Part I U.S. NUCLEAR REGULA TORY COMMISSION NRC RESPONSE NUMBER (03-2018)

~

  1. ~11£0(,<,

RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF INRC 2018 00018911 1 I

~

INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST

""'"' ..... * * .fl

RESPONSE

TYPE D INTERIM [Z] FINAL REQUESTER: DATE:

!Julian Tarver 11 05/03/2018 I

DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED RECORDS:

Org chart, staff roster, and purpose of Document Information Retrieval Tracking Project; COMS-94-004-IXS (4/19/1994)

PART I. -- INFORMATION RELEASED 0 The NRC has made some, or all, of the requested records publicly available through one or more of the following means:

(1) https://www.nrc.gov; (2) public ADAMS, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html; (3) microfiche available in the NRC Public Document Room; or FOIA Online, https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/public/home.

D Agency records subject to the request are enclosed.

Records subject to the request that contain information originated by or of interest to another Federal agency have been referred to D that agency (See Part I.D - Comments) for a disclosure determination and direct response to you.

D We are continuing to process your request.

0 See Part I.D - Comments.

PART I.A -- FEES

/

AMOUNT D You will be billed by NRC for the amount indicated.

0 Since the minimum fee threshold was not met, you will not be charged fees.

I I D You will receive a refund for the amount indicated.

$0.00 Due to our delayed response, you will not D Fees waived. D be charged fees.

PART I.B--INFORMATION NOT LOCATED OR WITHHELD FROM DISCLOSURE D We did not locate any agency records responsive to your request. Note: Agencies may treat three discrete categories of law enforcement and national security records as not subject to the FOIA ("exclusions"). See 5 U.S.C. 552(c). This is a standard notification given to all requesters; it should not be taken to mean that any excluded records do, or do not, exist.

D We have withheld cert_ain information pursuant to the FOIA exemptions described, and for the reasons stated, in Part II.

D Because this is an interim response to your request, you may not appeal at this time. We will notify you of your right to appeal any of the responses we have issued in response to your request when we issue our final determination.

D You may appeal this final determination within 90 calendar days of the date of this response. If you submit an appeal by mail, address it to the FOIA Officer, at U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop T-2 F43, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001. You may submit an appeal by e-mail to FOIA.resource@nrc.gov. You may fax an appeal to (301) 415-5130. Or you may submit an appeal through FOIA Online, https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/public/home. Please be sure to include on your submission that it is a "FOIA Appeal."

PART I.C -- REFERENCES AND POINTS OF CONTACT You have the right to seek assistance from the NRC's FOIA Public Liaison by submitting your inquiry at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/

foia/contact-foia.html, or by calling the FOIA Public Liaison at (301) 415-1276.

If we have denied your request, you have the right to seek dispute resolution services from the NRC's Public Liaison or the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS). To seek dispute resolution services from OGIS, you may e-mail OGIS at ogis@nara.gov, send a fax to (202) 741-5789, or send a letter to: Office of Government Information Services, National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001. For additional information.,about OGIS, please visit the OGIS website at "

https://www. archives. gov/ogis.

NRC FORM 464 Part I U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NRC RESPONSE NUMBER (03-2018)

RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF INRC 2018 00018911 1 INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST RE~~~SE D INTERIM J ./ I FINAL PART I.D -- COMMENTS Please note:

COMIS-94-004 is being released in its entirety.

The NRC located a report that is partially responsive to the Document Information Retrieval Tracking Project you are seeking (Commission Decision Tracking System COTS). The enclosed 26 pages of the COTS report are responsive to your request and are being released in their entirety The remaining pages of that report are non-responsive.

An Org Chart was not located.

Since you stated that you do not have access to a computer, the NRC is providing a courtesy copy.

Signature - Freedom of Information Act Officer or Designee l Digitally signed by Stephanie A. Blaney Stephanie A. Blaney f

/, >[:)ate: 2018.05.03 06:27:59 -04'00'

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20665 April 19, 1994 COMIS-94-004 MEMORANDUM FOR: commissioner Rogers Commissioner Remick Commissioner de Planque FROM: Ivan Selin)

SUBJECT:

DOCUMENT INFORMATION RETRIEVAL TRACKING PROJECT During my meeting on the Document Information Retrieval Tracking Project on Wednesday, April 13, 1994, which members of your staff attended, I was impressed by the progress that Mr. Chilk has achieved in the relatively short time that he has had to work on the project. The briefing also confirmed my belief that the project is worth doing and should be continued.

If we proceed with the project, we will need to extend the temporary arrangements we employed for the project office and the Office of the Secretary. I would therefore recommend that we assign the responsibility for completing the project to Mr. Chilk, who is on detail from the Office of the Secretary, and designate John c. Hoyle as the Acting secretary and Andrew Bates as Acting Assistant secretary during Mr. Chilk's absence. What this would do is to reaffirm the Commission's support for Mr. Chilk's proposal as outlined in his memorandum of February 14, 1994.

I have attached a draft announcement that would inform SECY personnel and NRC senior management of these temporary changes.

I would appreciate your comments by COB Friday, April 22, 1994.

Secy, please track.

cc: EDO OGC SECY

    • .?'

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

~-------------------------------------------------~---------

ANNOUNCEMENT NO.

DATE:

TO: OFFICE DIRECTORS/REGIONAL ADMINI_STRATORS

SUBJECT:

DOCUMENT INFORMATION RETRIEVAL TRACKIN1G PROJECT Earlier this year, I requested the Secretary of the Commission, Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, to explore the feasibility of designing an electronic records system to assist the commissioners and NRC senior managers by providing an electronic library qf k,ey policy documents on a number of topical areas of interest. I, .am very pleased with the progress that has been made since then. After consulting the Coillmission, I have decided to establish a separate project office to complete the identification and collection of key policy issues in approximately 28 areas of interest and to incorporate these issues into the automated, on-line system being developed to support the commission and Senior Staff with respect to their reference needs. Mr. Chilk agreed to be detailed from the Office of the Secretary to direct this project office, which will be temporarily located in Room 18F1, OWFN. Mr. Chilk can be reached by telephone at 301-504-1875.

Because this special project will require six months or more to complete, the commission has approved temporary management changes in the Office of the Secretary to ensure that that office continues to function efficiently in Mr. Chilk's absence.

Accordingly, Mr. John c. Hoyle, currently Assistant Secretary of the Commission, is being named Acting Secretary, and Mr. Andrew Bates, currently Chief of the Operations Branch, is being named Acting Assistant Secretary.

  • Ivan Selin Chairman

JANUARY 30, 1996 COMMISSION DECISION TRACKING SYSTEM FINAL REPORT OVERVIEW The CDTS provides quick access to key documents pertaining to subjects of special interest to the Commission and preserves NRC historical policy decisions for its staff and Commissioners, giving them ready access to the facts and data available to their predecessors. The system contains the electronic full text of documents that have been key to the development of Commission decisions in major subject policy areas. In addition-to a large number of full text documents, the NRC Historian has developed Monographs for most of the subjects which are available for viewing and downloading from COTS.

The system permits users to retrieve a key document by subject, an issue within a subject area, or by document type. A "key document" is one that has reached the Commission's attention, is linked to one or more significant issues, and treats these issues in a substantive manner. It has a significant relationship to one or more key Commission decisions/policies and is necessary for a complete understanding of Commission actions/decisions. Key documents are those that include: 1) a major change in Commission policy; 2} a major new issue; 3} a major commitment of resources by the Commission or by a class of licensees; 4} a degree of controversy; and 5} the existence of significant issues concerning public health, safety, the environment or common defense and security. A significant "issue", within a subject area, is a matter that has substantial impact on policy and/or its implementation; or has been controversial.

The COTS operates on a separate file server on the AUTOS LAN. There are more than 4,000 documents with more than 80,000 pages loaded in the system.

PROJECT ORGANIZATION In February 1994, Chairman Selin asked the Secretary of the Commission, Samuel J. Chilk, to initiate the feasibility of designing an electronic records system to assist the Commissioners and NRC senior staff by providing an electronic library of NRC key policy documents on a number of topical areas.

The Commission approved 29 subjects listed in Attachment I.

"A Commission Decision Tracking System {COTS) Project Office was formed in April 1994 to accomplish this effort and officially approved by the Commission 1

in a Staff Requirements Memorandum, dated May 9, 1994. Samuel Chilk was appointed as Director of the Project to develop the conceptual design and the system. With the exception of Mr. Chilk, the Project Staff was composed of NRC personnel temporarily assigned to the office on a rotational basis (Attachment 2). In addition to the COTS Staff, the NRC Offices were responsible for document identification and collection. NRC staff members who were deemed experts in a subject area (Attachment 3) were identified and organized into teams. These individuals identified the issues related to their subject and collected key documents. The documents were then provided to the COTS Project Office for inclusion into the COTS.

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT License Renewal was chosen as the pilot subject for the COTS because the subject was of prominent interest for the Commission at the time. Under the direction of Frank Akstulewicz, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR),

the issues related to License Renewal were identified. Charts were developed showing the document categories and documents related to each issue (Attachment 4). Mr. Akstulewicz's efforts evolved into the basic conceptual design for the COTS. Charts were developed for the remaining subjects as the subjects were processed {Attachment 5).

A rapid prototyping method was used to identify requirements for system designs and several different approaches were tried. The first automated prototype utilized Folios software since it was available and in us1? in the agency. However, this software was not robust enough for the COTS, and the Office of Information Resources Management (IRM) evaluated other full text retrieval software packages in the marketplace. Personal Librarian Software (PLS) version 4.0 was selected by IRM and a prototype was developed using PLS version 4.0. It turned out that PLS version 4.0 did not provide an adequate sort capability, so the system was developed using PLS version 3.0. Visual Basic was used for the front end screens. These front end screens provide user friendly, structured paths to retrieve the full text documents in the system. The system was designed to run on the standard NRC personal computer (PC) and the AUTOS LAN to minimize the hardware costs.

The Project Office developed guidelines and controls for receiving and processing documents. Weekly meetings were held by the Project Off'ice with the subject area managers and their teams to review documents/problE!ms and to provide guidance and assistance as required. The collection phase \las limited to 40-60 days. After the key documents were submitted to the Project staff, Cover Sheets, that provided fielded information extracted from the document to be entered as the header on COTS, were verified for complete and accurate information. The documents were tracked by noting what form it was submitted in (electronic or hardcopy to be sent to the scanning contractor); and many quality assurance procedures were utilized to ensure that duplicate documents were not entered on COTS. The document was checked to ensure all enclosures were attached and available in electronic form. Finally, the documents were reviewed to determine whether they were available or not available to the public.

2

The Project Office staff identified document types (Attachmenf 6) to facilitate the identification and retrieval of documents. The Office also developed standard rules for completing Cover Sheets (Attachment 7), or information extracted from key documents and for entry in the programmed fields.

During the summer of 1994, member~ of the CDTS Project Office and IRM further established rules for defining document categories, and rules for establishing links between related documents. These "fields" were identified as a skeletal basis for the PLS data base. Fielded data allows for quick, efficient structured searches of the data base. Links between the documents were included to allow the user to move quickly and easily between related key documents (SECY Papers) and Commission Decisions (Staff Requirements Memoranda). Considerable effort was taken to identi~ and "link" documents which correspond to each other in the system.

The CDTS provides both a guided path structure search capability and a free-form user search capability. Structured searches by Subject/Topic/Issue, Subject/Document Category, and Document Category are available as well as unique paths for Congressional Affairs and the ability for the Commissioners and individual offices to construct their own unique searches/data bases.

Date ranges and four different sorts can be selected when using the guided structured search path. Retrieved documents can be viewed on the screen, printed or downloaded into electronic files on the users' PC.

The Project Office worked with the Office of Administration (ADM) to facilitate the awarding of contracts to provide the necessary scanning capability. The COTS was the first project at the NRC which required a high volume of scanning due to the age of the majority of documents. ADM and the Project Office were involved in this learning process since the agency had no central office for the optical scanning of documents. Several months were spent during the summer of 1994 in procuring the services of reliable scanning contractors. The Office of the Secretary, the Office of General Counsel library, the Public Document Room and the Central Files staff, assisted in retrieving hard copy and electronic versions of documents. Additionally, ADM provided assistance in typing the headers required for each document entered into the CDTS. The headers were created from the information on the Cover Sheet completed by the Subject Managers and verified by the CDTS staff.

Since the system is a prototype, a security plan was not developed due to funding considerations (Attachment 8). Therefore, no classified, proprietary, unclassified safeguards or personal privacy information are included on the CDTS. OGC attorney-client privilege documents and OGC documents that were not distributed to the staff are also not included. These documents are identified in the data base with a single paragraph, replacing the text, which identifies that the document exists, but that access is restricted.

Demonstrations of the prototype were provided to the teams and the iterative process of seeking feedback and modifying the design continued throughout the summer and fall of 1994. For example, the Project Office identified a problem with the response time taking too long when using COTS. This obstacle was resolved through advice from the PLS vendor.

3

The Project Office conducted User Surveys in March 1995 and in September 1995 (Attachment 9) to obtain user feedback to improve the operation of the COTS prototype. Twenty-nine individuals responded. Each survey was ana1lyzed by the Project Office and a member of the COTS staff met one-on-one with the respondent to clarify and answer questions/problems. The feedback received from the two surveys, briefings and demonstrations was utilized in developing the Functional Requirements for the final operational system. The Functional Requirements document was developed and forwarded to IRM in December 1995 (Attachment 10).

Several briefings were presented to Chairman Selin, Commissioners Rogers and de Planque, and Chairman Jackson. Additionally, numerous meetings were held with other NRC offices (Commission staff, NRR, NMSS, RES, etc.) to introduce and demonstrate the CDTS.

The COTS was made available to the first users in December 1994. By August of 1995, all 29 subjects were loaded and the user community had grown to more than 50. Over 70 users now have access to the system in the Commissioners Offices, OGC, OCA, SECY, EDO, NRR, NMSS, RES, OIP, OP, ADM, OE and the COTS Project Office staff (Attachment 11). Each of the subject managers has access to the system.

A User Manual was developed and went through several major revisions. Two versions of this document were distributed to the users. The final version is being updated by IRM to incorporate the comments of a technical editor. In addition to the User Manual, a half-day training class was developed and presented to users by the Project Office staff. The Office of Personnel has indicated that when further training is needed, the Individual Training Center can develop a course.

A Procedures Guide was developed by the Project Office, approved, and forwarded to SECY for implementation and distribution (Attachment 12). The Guide describes the procedures for operation of the system, and the role of each office, including responsibilities, such as how often key documents should be submitted. The collection interval for key documents is daily to provide the most up-to-date data base for users.

COMMISSION DIRECTIVES On April 21, 1995 the Commission was briefed on the COTS (Attachment 13). The

.Staff Requirements Memorandum, dated May 5, 1995 (Attachment 14), directed the Project Office to prepare an options paper for the continued operation of the COTS. On June 16, 1995 a Commission Paper was forwarded which provided recommendations for the future direction of the COTS (Attachment 15). In a Staff Requirements Memorandum, dated August 7, 1995, the Commission approved the Project Office's recommendations and ordered the office to complete its assignment and turn the operational responsibilities of the COTS over to SECY on December 31, 1995 (Attachment 16). The Project Office completed its assignments and turned the operation of the COTS over to SECY on DecGmber 31, 1995 (Attachment 17).

4

LESSONS LEARNED The following is a brief list of important lessons learned from developing the COTS: 1) Utilizing a prototype proved beneficial both in shortening the development time, and in testing and implementing modifications and improvements. The average time in designing, developing and implementing a new system using conventional methodology is approximately three to four years. The COTS was designed, developed and available to users in less than 18 months. 2} Based on experience with the system, the data base should be updated daily to provide the most up-to-date documents for users 3} Subject Matter staff experts are essential for developing a full text system of key documents and keeping the system current and relevant. 4) Having a knowledgeable advisor for the software utilized is highly desirable. Since no one within the NRC was familiar with PLS, it took much more time to learn how to utilize PLS and, in at least one instance, took longer to resolve problems, such as a slow response time. The system response time needs to be adequate

. to allow as many users as desired to utilize the COTS at the same time. 5)

This type of project requires strong project management coordination and control. 6) The project must have Commission level oversight. 7) Based on the experience on this project, the NRC needs to have a central control point for the scanning of documents. 8) The COTS is expected to be a low maintenance system, collecting approximately 8 documents per week based on the number of documents in the COTS for the years 1990-1994.

RECOMMENDATIONS The following are recommendations proposed by the COTS Project Office:

1) The COTS should be expanded to the entire NRC staff at the appropriate time.

2} The Office of Personnel should be directed to establish a formal training class.

3) An online tutorial should be created to augment the formal training.
4) Selective CDTS documents should be released to the public. Approximately 80% of the COTS data base consists of SECY papers and Staff Requirements Memoranda {SRM). The Commission's current policy is to release, in a controlled manner, as many of the SECYs and SRMs as possible. It would not take a large effort to release the older documents. Some preliminary work has been accomplished and it is the understanding of the Project Office that EDO has informally concurred in the release of almost all COTS SECY papers and SRMs and that the Commission offices have agreed to let the Office of the Secretary make the final decision.

5} The COTS should be updated on a daily basis. COTS is a valuable research tool for the entire NRC staff particularly for newly assigned Commissioners and staff members. To be of most us~, the system must be updated daily so that decision makers have current information pertaining to subjects in which the Commissioners have expressed special interest.

5

6} Recommendations in the Functional Requirements that are not already implemented in the prototype should be completed.

7} IRM should be designated as the Commission's central control point for all scanning needs.

8} The working prototype COTS should be converted to a permanent system. If the Agency Document Access Management System (ADAMS}, now being designed by IRM is completed in 1996, and has demonstrated that it can support and maintain the specific and unique requirements which have been built in the COTS, then the COTS should be merged into ADAMS. If ADAMS will not be completed in 1996, the Project Office recommends that the COTS enhancements which were included in the COTS Functional Requirements for the permanent system be completed at that time so the users may benefit from the 1entire extent of the system.

ATTACHMENTS:

I. List of the 29 Subjects in the COTS

2. List of NRC Personnel Assigned to the COTS Project Office
3. List of Subject Managers
4. Charts Developed for License Renewal
5. Charts Developed for Remaining Subjects
6. List of Document Types
7. Coding Rules for Cover Sheets

.8. Memorandum on the CDTS Security Plan

9. User Survey with Comments
10. Functional Requirements for Final System
11. List of COTS Users
12. Procedures Guide
13. Slides from April 21, 1995 Commission Meeting
14. Staff Requirements Memorandum dated May 5, 1995
15. COTS Options Paper dated June 16, 1995
16. Commission Response dated August 7, 1995
17. Project Office Letters dated December 21, 1995 and January 3, 1996 6

4J p

Q) a

.s::

5/18/95 u

nj SUBJECTS SOURCE OF INTEREST 4J 4J SELIN REMICK OGC

1. X. )( 1.
2. X 2.
3. K I 3.
4. X X K 4.
5. K K 5.
6. X X X 6.
7. X K 7.
8. X K K 8.
9. K X 9.
10. X X 10.
11. X K 11.
12. X X 12.
13. X X 13.

X X 14.

X X 15.

X 16.

X 17.

X 18.

X 19.

X 20.

X 21.

X 22.

X 23.

X 24.

G:\S0URCE.SC4

Attachment 2 MEMBERS OF CDTS STAFF Period worked on CDTS Projecf, Samuel Chilk February 1994 -December 1995 Donnie* Grimsley April 1994 - June 1995 Dave Jaffee April 1994 - June 199:S Mike Macwilliams April-1994

- December 1995 Patty Anderson April 1994..: October 1995 Karen Bernard-van der Mel October 1994 *_ December 1995

~osalyn. Jones May 8, .1995 - June 30, 1995 Rene- Cesaro September 12, 1994 - December 31, 1994 Wendy D'Souza September 11, 1995- December 1995 g:cdtsstaf December 28, 1995

COMMISSION*DECISION TRACKING SYSTEM CONTACTS I SUBJECT IPROGRAM OFFICE CONTACT$ IMAIL STOP I Advanced Reactors , Included in Standardization Agreement States Kathy Schneider (KXS) 415-2320 - Lead OSP 0-3023 OGC: Chip Cameron (fXC) 415-1642 0-15Bl8 COTS: Kathy Schneider (KXS}

Decommissioning Tim J~hnson (TCJ) 415-7299 - Lead NMSS T-7F27 OGC: Chip Cameron (FXC) 415-1642 0-15Bl8 COTS: Tim Johnson (TCJ)

Emergency Preparedness Ed Fox (EFF) 415-2908 - Lead NRR . 0-9Hl5 I OGC: Brad Jones (BWJ) 415-16.28 ,0-15Bl8 COTS: Ed Fox (EFF)

Enforcement Renee Pedersen (RMP) 415-2742 - Lead OE 0-7H5 OGC: Richard Hoefling (RKH) 415-1690 0-15818 COTS: Renee Pedersen (RMP}

Enrichment Thomas *wenck (TXW) 415-8088 - Lead NMSS T-8A33 OGC: Brad Jones (BWJ) 415-1628 0-15818 COTS: Rocio Castaneira (RXCll Environmental Protect ion Phyllis Sobel (PAS) 415-6714 - Lead NMSS T-7C26 Agency (EPA)

OGC: Hampton Newsome (HHN) 415-162~ 0-15818 COTS: Phyllis Sobel (PAS} '

Export and Import Elaine Hemby (EOH) 415-2341 - Lead OlP 0-3HS I

OGC: Trip Rothschild (T8R) 415-1611 0-15818 COTS: Elaine Hemby (EOH)

High Level Waste Joseph Holonich (JJHl) 415-6643 - Lead NMSS T-7J9 Jack Spraul {JGS1)415-6715 - Lead NMSS T.:..7J9 OGC: Neil Jertsen {ENJ) 415-1800 O-l5Bl8 COTS: Jack Spraµl (JGSl)

Human Factors Frank Coffman {FDC) 415-5698 - Lead RES T-10E33 OGC: Brad Jones (8WJ) 415-1628 0-15Bl8 COTS: ,Frank* Coffman (FDC)

Internatiqnal Issues Bi 11 Upshaw (WXU). 415'."'2330 - Lead OIP 0-3821 OGC: Trip Rothschild (TBR) 415-1611 0-15Bl8 COTS: Jack Ramsey (JER2)

December 11, 1995 Attachment 3

COMMISSION DECISION TRACKING SYSTEM CONTACTS SUBJECT PROGRAM OFFICE CONTACTS DATE I I SUBMITTED License Renewal Frank Akstulewicz {FMA) 415-1136 - Lead NRR 0-11F23 Part 54 T-9F33 Raj Anand {RKA) 415-1146 - Helper for AZ Don Cleary (DPC) 415-6263 - Lead RES Part 51 OGC: Geary Mizuno {GSM) 415-1639 0-15818 COTS: Frank Akstulewicz (FMA)

Location/Consolidation Mike Springer {MLS) 415-8080 - Lead ADM T-7D59 OGC: Brian Kildee (BTK) 415-1561 0-15818 COTS: Eugenia Pleasant (EMP)

Low Level Waste . Robert Nelson (RAN) 415-7298 - Lead NMSS T-7F27 OGC: Dorothy Gauch (DMG5) 415-1630 0-15818 COTS: Robert Nelson (RAN) &Mike Weber (MFW)

Maintenance Wayne Scott (WES) 415-1020 - Lead NRR O-I0Al9 OGC: Geary Mizuno (GSM) 415-1639 0-15818 COTS: Wayne Scott {WES)

Medical Uses Donna-Beth Howe (DBH) 415-7848 - Lead NMSS T-8F5 (Larry Camper (LWC) 415-7231 - Supervisor) 0-15818

- OGC: Marjorie.Rothschild (MUR) 415-1633 COTS: Donna-Beth Howe (DBH)

Mixed Waste Included in Low Level Waste and EPA Operator Licensing Fred Guenther {SXG) 415-1056 - Led NRR 0-10022 OGC: Mike Rafky (LMR) 4.15-1974 COTS: Fred Guenther {SXG) 0-15818 Organizational Changes Jim McDermott (JFM2) 415-7516 - Lead OP T-3A2 Cynthia Marcy {CTM) 415-7109 - Help for OP OGC: Marvin Itzkowitz (MLI) 415-1566 0-15818 COTS: Jim McDermott (JFM2), Paul Bird (PEB),

Cynthia Marcy (CHI)

Preemption Hampton Newsome (HHN) 415-1623 - Lead OGC 0-15818 COTS: Hampton Newsome (HHN)

Radiation Protection John Glenn 415-6187 - Lead RES T-9C24 Standards OGC: Brad Jones {BWJ) 415-1628 0-15818 COTS: Kitty Dragonette (KSD)

December 11, 1995 2

COMMISSION DECISION TRACKING SYSTEM CONTACTS SUBJECT PROGRAM OFFICE CONTACTS DATE SUBMITTED Safeguards John Davidson (JJD) 415-8130 - Lead NMSS T-8A33 Chuck Hendren (CHH} 415-3209 - Lead NRR 0-9024 OGC: Bob Fonner (RLF) 415-1643 0-15818 COTS: John Davidson (JJO) & Chuck Hendren (CHH)

Safety Goal Mark Cunningham (MAC3) 415-6189 - Lead RES T-9F31 OGC: Geary Mizuno (GSM} 415-1639 cno OGC doc\.lllents> 0-15818 COTS: Mark Cunningham (MAC3)

Severe Accidents Charlie Ader (CEA) 415-5622 - Lead RES T-10Fl3 (Rich Barrett, NRR)

OGC: Geary Mizuno (GSM} 415-1639 0-15818 COTS: Charlie Ader (CEA)

Source Term Len Soffer (LXSl) 415-6574 - Lead RES T-10Fl3 OGC: Brad Jones (8WJ} 415-1628 . 0-15818 COTS: Charlie Willis (CAW}

Standardization Son Ninh (SON) 415-1125 - Lead NRR O-llH3 (Ted Quay (TRQ) 415-1118 - Supervisor) 0-15818 OGC: Geary Mizuno (GSM) 415-1639 COTS: Son Ninh (SON)

Transportation James Schneider (JFS1} 415-8523 - Lead NMSS T-8F5*

OGC: C. William Reamer (C8R} 415-1640 0-15818 COTS: James Schneider (JFS1)

Uranium Mill Tailings Included in Low Level Waste, EPA, Agreement States December 11, 1995 3

Attachment 15 POLICY ISSUE (Notation Vote)

June 16. 1995 SECY-95-158

.IQB: The Commissioners lBQM: James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations Samuel J. Chilk, Director commission Decision Tracking system Project Office

SUBJECT:

CONTINUATION OF THE COMMISSION DECISION TRACKING SYSTEM PURPOSE:

This paper responds to the Staff Requirements Memorandum dated May 5, 1995 (M950421). The Commission directed the Commission Decision Tracking system (CDTS) Project Office to prepare an options paper discussing: (1) value of *the system from the staff's perspective, (2) budget considerations, (3) project continuation options, (4) staffing options including impact on agency resources, and (5) requirements necessary to support continued operation of CDTS from other offices. Commission approval of (1) continuing the CDTS project, and (2) ,assignment of COTS project management responsibilities is recommended.

NOTE: TO BE MADE PUBLI:CLY AVAI:LABLE WHEN THE FINAL SRM IS MADE Contacts: AVAILABLE Samuel J. Chilk, CDTS (301) 415_-1875 Arnold E. Levin, IRM (301) 415-7458

The Commissioners BACKGROUND In February 1994, the Commission requested the exploration of the feasibility of designing an electronic records system t~ assist the Commissioners and NRC senior staff by providing an electronic library of key policy documents on a number of topical areas.

The Commission formed the COTS Project Office to accomplish this effort.

A prototype system was developed in order to determine the functional requirements for the COTS. The position of the*

Executive Director for Operations (EDO) on the COTS prcitotype has always been that its use would lead to the implementation of a production system in late CY 1996 or early CY 1997 as a part of the implementation of the new agency document management system.

As a prototype, the EDO's intention was to develop a demonstration system as rapidly as practical without regard to long-term stability, maintainability, or flexibility.

The EDO believes that the prototype has been very effective in developing requirements for the production system and in providing the Commission with a system which allows staff to retrieve the full text of do~ents that were key to Commission decisions. Documents were loaded into the system and made available to staff on a flow basis beginning in December 1994.

Twenty-nine subjects were selected by the Commissioners, the Office of General Counsel (OGC), and the staff as the most.

important policy documents. Fifteen of *those subjects, as well as four subjects that were combined with other subjects, are currently available in the system. When all 29 have been completed by mid-July or early August 1995, the system will contain a total of about 4, 000 documents_ (75,000 pages)

  • Concern has ):)een voiced that the current*hardware/software environment may not support all needed CDTS requirements and that the addition of more users may have a significant impact on response time. The CD'l'S Project Office and the Office ,of Information Resources Management (IRM) staff have met with representatives from the company that created the software platform on which CDTS is built to identify a solution. As a result of those meetings, changes will ):)e made to the system by July 15, 1995, that should alleviate the*current response time.

problems. However, the staff is not sure what effects ;any expansion of the system in terms of users or functionality may have on response time in the future. Also, given that *t:he system is a prototype, the staff does not know if response tim,e problems can be easily corrected if they do occur.

The Commissioners A guide describing the responsibilities and procedures for supporting the COTS has been prepared and will be issued by September .1995 after staff comments have been received.

VALUE OF THE SYSTEM The COTS Project Office is of the view that there is great value in an application that provides automated access to the agency's key decision documents. This is based on discussions with commission staff, results from the COTS user survey, and discussions with the program staff that selected the key documents. Responses to the COTS user survey indicate that using the COTS makes it easier and quicker to find documents than previous methods used. Several staff members have expressed the view that the effort identified old documents they had long ~ince forgotten; others indicated they are considering changing their

.filing system along the lines of the issues identified as part the process of organizing the key documents. No user or program staff member indicated that the project was useless or of marginal value. Clearly, the system is beneficial as the agency's key decision makers reach retirement age and leave, potentially taking with them important pieces of NRC corporate memory.

Managers were initially concerned about the amount of time their staff spent compiling documents. This.effort, however, was a one-time startup cost that will not be incurred again. system upkeep from this point on will be limited to updating current subjects at an estimated rate of 2.1 documents per day (which should have minimal impact on staff resources) and adding new subjects approved by the Commissiona The staff believes that the identification, collection, and addition of documents to new subjects should be done prospectively. Since any new subject will be approved by the commission, the Project Office believes that the time period covered by the subject Should be determined by the Commission when it approves the subject.

BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS FOR COTS PROTOTYPE CONTINUATION OPTIONS By way .of background, costs identified for the COTS fall in three categories: (1) the costs to identify, retrieve, and process the historical material (startup costs); (2f the costs of the prototype hardware and software which may or may not be ultimately selected for.use with th~ new agency document management system; and (3) the costs of maintaining the system once it is fully established and operational. By asking for the COTS prototype continuation options, the Commission may have meant to include both the prototype costs between now and the startup of the agency document management system and the costs of maintaining a fully operational COTS. Since the options provided

The Commissioners in this paper both assume continuation of the prototyp,e until the new agency document management system is operational, *the relevant consideration seems to be whether the automat1ed system is more cost-effective than the present manual methods of document identification and retrieval. If so, then .cD'rs should obviously be continued in light of the expressed user satisfaction. If it has a higher operational cost, however, ~en it would be appropriate to consider other factors such as accessibility, ease of retrieval, completeness, and us4ar satisfaction *.

With respect to the first factor, startup costs, a sho1-t: summary is provided for information. By mid-July 1995, $537,000 will have been spent on the prototype system. This includeH scanning and coding ($125,000); software ($47,000); and system implementation, maintenance, and enhancement ($366,000). We will also have expended 19.3 FTE ( 1 FTE for Project Directc,r, 16.4 from EDO staff, 1. 4 FTE from SECY, and O. 5 FTE from OGC:) on the prototype. Of the dollars spent, $275,000 will have bEien spent on efforts that will form the foundation on which a prc1duction system could be built. The remaining $262,000 represents costs such as contractor support for loading documents into the CDTS and contract programming services that, while not beingr directly transferrable to .the production system, were necessary for prototype implementation and provided experience that will be useful in implementing the production system. Most significant*

about these expenditures is that they allowed us to provide the commission and staff with automated access to key documents relating to major commission policy decisions until a production system is implemented.

The funding required to continue the prototype for Project continuation Options 1 and 2 (as described later) is provided in Attachments 1 and 2. In FY 1996, no funds are budgeted for continued maintenance of the COTS prototype~ In FY 1997, IRM currently has $300,000 budgeted for COTS efforts. Unde:C' either CDTS continuation option, funds will have to be reallocated from existing agency resources.

With respect to the budget question, that is, whether tl1e CDTS automated approach is more cost-effective than the curr,ant manual filing systems used by individual Commissioners offices and the Staff, it has not been possible for the offices to agre,a as to what resources are required to collect the relevant documents each time a commission paper on one of the topical issues is written. It is self-evident that the Program Office, tbe Office of General counsel, the EDO staff, and the staffs of tht!

Commissioners must keep a collection of documents for a particular policy issue that duplicates the materials tllat have

~en entered in the COTS. This roughly approximates thE! effort

The Commissioners expended by the staff in working with CDTS to identify the materials for each one of the subjects when the subject involved is one the Commission has not considered for a time. When the subject has been the topic of numerous Commission meetings over a short period of time, however, the effort involved would be substantially less. One can intuitively conclude that CDTS would save substantial personnel over time, if it were carefully maintained and if regularly used. Whether it is *possible to capture those savings so that FTE can be given to the office where the CDTS project management responsibility is placed is difficult to determine.

COTS PROJECT CONTINUATION OPTIONS In preparing this paper, several project continuation options were considered including stopping the project and completing the remaining subjects with paper copies of key documents,. freezing the prototype and allowing no further enhancements until the CDTS module of the new agency document management system is available in the 1996-1997 time frame, and continuing the prototype allowing for design changes and the addition of new features to improve the system as needed. After further analysis, only the two latter options are provided for your consideration because they are the options which appear to be most reasonable.

Both project continuation options contemplate that a production CDTS will be developed. The current IRM plan is to develop it in the context of the agency's strategy for a new agency document management system. The goal of the new system is to provide a robust search and retrieval capability and to provide for the ability to view both textual and non-textual information at the workstation. The goals also are to capture and store documents only once but make them availal:)le for retrieval by many different applications. The CDTS is projected to be delivered as one of the first application modules under this concept in l~te 1996 or early 1997. The CDTS ts anticipated to operate until the new module meets all of the documented and approved CDTS needs.

Both the staff and the CD'l'S Project Office agree that all 25 subjects should be entered into the COTS by the middle of July 1995; that access to the prototype should continue while the production system is being developed; and that the 25 subjects should be kept current by adding new documents as they are identified.

  • lists the functions, tasks, and resource costs that are common to both project continuation options.

The commissioners Attachment 2 lists the functions, tasks, resource costs, and estimated completion dates that are unique to Project*

continuation Option 2.

Attachment 3 lists the advantages and disadvantages of each project continuation option.

Attachment 4 lists requirements that the COTS Project C1ffice has determined (through prototype user feedback) to be desirable but are not crucial to the utility of the system as it now stands.

The EDO's intention is that these requirements will be satisfied with the implementation of the production COTS. The CDTS Project Office has no general objection, but notes that if implementation of the production system is unduly delayed, it would be desirable to complete selected items earlier.

The difference between Project Continuation Option 1 (EDO choice) and Project Continuation Option 2 (COTS Project Office choice) is that Project Continuation Option 1 limits the extent to which additional features and users would be added to the pro*totype system. Project continuation Option 2 would permit new features tc;, be added ( such as new links between Staff Requiremen*cs Memoranda and Commission briefings) and would allow design changes to enhance the system until the new document ma1ttagement system demonstrates its ability to provide COTS functio1,ality as determined from use of the prototype.*

The staff believes Project Continuation *Option 1 is prej:erable.

This option provides the.opportunity to continue the USE! of the prototype until a module of the new agency document manclgement system is developed to address COTS requirements, provicles the ability to better define requirements and validate the tltility of and need for the COTS through an increase in user base etnd participation, and represents the best balance between capitalizing on the investment made thus far*in the prototype system and minimizing further expend!ture of resources c,n a system to be replaced in the near future. While the sta~ff does not question the desirability of the additional enhancu1ents under Project Continuation*Option 2, there is a concern about continuing to spend resources on a system that is schedulled for replacement in the near future. The staff believes that feedback from the users of the prototype supports*the fact that the prototype is a valuable tool for the staff to use as it now stands and further refinements would produce marginal benefits in relation to costs incurred. The staff is also concerned that the.

software platform.upon which the prototype is built may not support some of the enhancements that may surface in the future.

Moreover, in view of recent proposed budget cuts for FY 1996 by the House Appropriations Subcommittee, only essential expenditures for a prototype system can be justified.

The Commissioners The COTS Project Office believes that project continuation Option 2 is preferable. The COTS Project Office's view is that Option 1 provides only the minimal benefits that are possible in.the current COTS, and although Option 2 is more costly, the COTS Project Office believes the significant benefits offered by Option 2 outweigh its higher costs. This option affords the Commission greater flexibility in the future development of this system and retains all features available in Project Continuation Option 1. It-allows modifications to be made to the system to respond to user and Commission requests and allows records to be corrected as a result of the COTS Project Office verification effort. It will ensure that features requested by the staff and Commission are tested and available to the Commission and the staff prior to their implementation into a production system.

This option also allows the Commission and staff access to additional COTS functionality until the new document management system is designed and implemented and demonstrates its capability to provide COTS functionality. The CDTS Projec:t Office believes that the most important thing is that staff have available a system that meets its needs. This conservative approach has resulted in a system that can meet those needs for several years.

ST~FFING OPTIONS FOR ASS-IGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE COTS CUrrently, the CDTS Project Office is the System Manager for the COTS. There are three options for assigning system management responsibility: (1) retain the CDTS Project Office, (2) transfer the CDTS responsibilities to EDO; or (3) transfer the CDTS responsibiliti~s to the Office of the Secretary (SECY).

The CDTS Project Office and the EDO propose that the responsibility for management of the COTS be transferred to SECY. Therefore, with brevity in mind, other management responsibility options have not been discussed in this paper.

'l'he Secretary of the Commission could effectively coordinate matters requiring Commission attention such as selecting new subjects, approving design changes, and approving software platform changes. Also, the office is in an excellent position to ensure that the system is maintained current and meets Commission level expectations as well as* having the administrative expertise to manage the system. The office would exercise overall management control and policy direction for the COTS a_nd would establish the functional requirements for the system. It would approve all content changes such as adding or deleting subjects, issues or documents, and coordinate the collection of key documents. In addition, SECY could assume responsibility for other such Commission automated functions as needed.

The Commissioners -s-The CDTS Project Office and the EDO, however, have differing opinions as to the timing of the.transfer of responsibility to SECY.

The CDTS Project Office believes the tasks described i~1 Option.2 are both needed and highly desirable, and the Project Office should be continued until those tasks have been implemented. The Project Office should complete its work by December 31, 1995, and, at that time, will discuss with the commission a termination date for the Project Office. This recommendation is based on the belief that the timing provides management continuity through the completion of user surveys and the determination of final CDTS functional requirements.

The EDO recommends the transfer be effective as of octolber 1,

  • 1995. By then, all presently known commitments as far i!I.S the loading of subjects and mutually agreed upon system mod:lfications will have been made. In addition, IRM will be in a pos:Ltion to begin work on the systems analysis work leading to the production system. The staff believes that the conclusion of all c:urrent commitments with the CDTS Project Office is a logical pc>int at which to transfer control and that, if SECY i* going to have the

~ong-term responsibility for managing the system, it is to everyone's benefit that SECY be able to exercise* control over future CDTS activities as soon as practical. This apprc,ach will result in staffing reductions as early as reasonably acbievable.

FTE IMPACT QF THE CM'S CONTINUATION OPTIONS The agency-wide FTE requirements for Project continuation Options 1 and 2 are the same: 5. 7 FTE (3. O SECY., 2. 5 EDO,

  • 20 OGC) will be required through CY 1996 and 4.7 FTE (2.0 SECY, 2.5 EDO, 0.20 OGC) will be required thereafter. The additional FTE in SECY for CY 1996 is due to the need for managing a.new system,-especially through the transition from the Project Office, and to the amount of activity during that period related to finalizing the functional requirements for and implementing the production system. The EDO and OGC will cover their FTE support requirements within existing staffing ceilings. Althougltl the EDO understands the rationale behind the estimate for SECY o:f 3. o FTE for near-term transition/support and 2.o*FTE for long-telc:'Jll oversight, it is possible that the production system will, in fact, not require that much support. The staff believes that the SECY FTE requirements should be re-evaluated after SECY bas some experience in managing CDTS activities. The Project OffjLce supports the re-evaluation of this decision after SECY has served as*system manager for a year.

The Commissioners Decisions on how to fund the FTE requirements will be made as part of the agency's budget process. This is essential in light of upcoming budget reductions~

ASSISTANCE REQUIRED FROM QTHER OFFICES There is no change to the type of assistance needed from offices.

However, under either option for continuation of the CDTS, there will be an ongoing need for assistance from commission level and EDO offices. Offices having responsibility in a subject area will designate a qualified subject manager to be responsible for identifying key documents. These subject managers will provide identified documents to the office responsible for CDTS management as part of routine business. The office subject

  • manager will also serve as an advisor on the subject, and will periodically be asked to review new issues and documents proposed for inclusion under the subjects in the CDTS. Continued assistance will be needed to collect documents from OGC and the Office of Congressional Affairs. In addition, IRM will continue.

to be responsible for activities related to the application of information technology to the automated system.

COORDINATION; The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and could concur in either Project Continuation Option.

The Secretary concurs in recommending that the Office of the Secretary be assigned as the system Manager, assuming that its resources will be appropriately augmented in the agency's budget process.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

That the Commission:

(1) a. Adopt COTS Project Continuation Option 1 as recommended

. by the EDO, or

b. adopt COTS Project Continuation Option 2 as recommended by the CDTS Project Office.

The Commissioners (2) a. Assign management responsibility for the CDTS *to the Office of the Secretary effective October 1, 1995, as recommended by the EDO, or

b. assign management responsibility for the COTS *to the Office.of the Secretary effective December 31, 1995, as recommended by the COTS Project Office.

Operations

ilk, Director ecision Tracking fice Attachments:
1. List of COTS Functions/Tasks common to continuation Options 1 and 2
2. List of COTS Functions/Tasks Unique to Continuatiorl Option 2
3. Advantages/Disadvantages of the COTS Project Contir.Luation Options
4. Functions/Tasks Deferred until Production system Implementation Cormnissioners' comments or consent should be provided ciirectly to the Office of the Secretary by COB Friday, June 30, 1995.

Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT Friday, June 23, 1995, with a11 infor-mation copy to the Office of the Secretary. If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional review anci comment, the Commissioners and the secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.

DISTRIBUTION:

Commissioners OGC OCAA

  • SI:CY

ATTACHMENT 1 LIST OP CDTS PUHCTIOMS/TASKS COMMON TO CONTINUATION OPTl:ONS 1 MP 2 The CDTS Project Office estimates that all of these activities can be completed by December 31, 1995. EDO staff estimates for completion dates are shown in parentheses following each activity.

  • Continue COTS operation.
  • Provide user guide. (9/95)
  • Conduct second user survey. (9/95)
  • Hake changes required to keep system operational and useful.
  • Add additional users: 40 under Option 1 for a total of 100 users(9/95), and 90 under option 2 for a total of 150 users (1/96).
  • Maintain paper copy of subject sets.
  • Collect and enter documents to keep subjects current.
  • Add documents to system to keep original 25 COTS subjects current.
  • Add new subjects as commission directs. The EDO believes the most reasonable and cost effective way to do this is prospectively. That is, the EDO believes that no attempt should be made to identify historical documents related to the subject. Only documents created after the identification of a new subject should be added to the system. The COTS Project Office believes that the period covered by a subject should be decided when the commission approves a new subject.
  • Modify system to alleviate known response time problem. (7/95)
  • complete SECY/SRM links~ 500 documents. (1/96)
  • Add Commissioner Vote Sheets - 1,000 document~. Assumes text comments (not images) attached to an SRM that already exists in the system.

(4/96)

FONDING REOUIREQ

  • The total cost of executing these functions/tasks is $258K - $263K depending on whether 40 (Option 1) or 90 (Option 2) additional users are added. The real impact on adding users is on scheduling scarce staff/contractor resources for user installs, not cost.

FTE requirements are covered by the 5.7/4.7 FTEs needed for project continuation.

Cost projections are based on the assumption that all documents (new, corrected, relinked, etc.) are batched and loaded into the system once per calendar quarter.

Cost projections do not include the cost of adding newly identified

  • subjects to the system. Xt will cost $2o5K for initial system setup for a each new subject and approximately $65 per document to prepare and load.

ATTACHMENT 2 LIST OP CD'l'S PlJXCTl:ONS /TASKS UH:tOUB 'l'O COHTIM7A~~ION OPTION 2 Completion

~ Qat§!*

  • Add Commission briefing/SRM links $3.2K 1/96 (100 documents)
  • Add Commission policy statements/ $0.6K* 1/96 SRM links (20 documents)
  • Add ACRS letters/response links $SK 2/96 (250 documents)
  • complete verification effort $6.2:K 3/96 (400 Documents)
  • Add missing pages
  • Label "See original" in text for non-text material, e.g., charts
  • Determine Public Availability Status and $15. '7K 6/96 correct Header Codes (1,000 documents)
  • Add alpha and date sorts $2.7K 10/95
  • Change buttons-,to identify those that are $22K 4/96 active from those that are inactive
  • Make design changes to improve the COTS as ** Ongoing new features are identified by Commission FQNMNG REomRED F'l'E requirements are covered by the 5.7/4.7 FTEs needed for project continuation.

Cost projections are based ori the assumption that all documents (new, corrected, .relinked, etc.) are batched and loadecl* into the system once per calendar quarter. *

  • cost projections do not include the cost of adding newly identified subjects to the system. It will cost $2.5K for initiaJL system setup for each new subject and approximately $65 per documen1: to prepare and load. *
  • The _COTS Project Office estimates that all of these c1ctivities can be completed by December 31, 1995. mo* staff, however,, bas estimated the dates shown in this column for task completion.
    • Design changes will be considered as requested by tbe Commission.

They will be costed by IRM and approved by the_Commisslon on a case-by-case basis.

ATTACHMENT 3 ADV1dl'l'AGBS/DISADVA!fTAGBS OP 'l'HB CDTS PROJECT CQNTXNUATION OPTIONS OP'l'IOB 1: Freeze Prototype Functionality

  • Provides continued automated access to the 25 subject sets collected as a result of the prototype until a production system is tested, debugged, and accepted (late 1996 or early 1997). Access would be allowed during a period when up to four new commissioners will be coming to the NRC. *
  • Keeps the CDT~ current by adding new documents to existing subjects and adding new subjects upon commission direction.
  • Frees resources that could be used to develop the new agency document management system which the Commission has approved as a high priority strategic initiative for the agency.
  • Broadens and extends use of the prototype system to allow further refinement of functional requirements.
  • Avoids additional resource expenditures on activities that will not be transferrable to the production system.

. Disadvantages;

  • Does not allow use of prototype system for modeling additional-functional requirements.
  • Eliminates opportunity to make changes that would improve the efficiency and useability of the system.
  • Adds burden to system due to additional users that may result in degradation of system response times to*unacceptable levels.
  • Requires the purchase of additional software licenses for the prototype software platform that may be discarded when the production system is implemented (cost of licenses is $6K).

ATTACHMEN':t' 3 ADVAN'l'AGES/DISADVAN'l'AGES OP THE QDTS PROJECT_

CONTINUATION OPTIONS (cont'd)

OHIOII z: Expand Prototype FUnctionality Advantages:

  • Provides continued automated access to the 25 subject 1sets collected as a result of the prototype until a production system is tested, debugged, and accepted (late 1996 or early 1997)~ Access would be allowed during a period when up to four new Commissioners will be coming to the NRC.
  • Keeps the CDTS current by adding new documents as they are identified
  • and new subjects upon Commission direction.
  • A more completely workable system will be available if the plans and schedule for the new agency document management system are delayed or cannot be met.
  • Provides a more accurate system by completing the CDTS verification effort.
  • Allows refinement and testing of functional specifications when necessary to ensure the system meets users needs.
  • Increases the number of linked documents which expands the user's capacity to research faster and obtain more complete results.
  • Retain continued goodwill of users who see their suggeutions implemented *
  • Release more paper copies of documents to the NRC PUblic Document Room sooner.

Disadvantages;

  • Expends resources that could be used to develop the ne,r agency document management system which the commission has approved as a high priority strategic initiative for the agency.
  • Adds bUJ:"den to the system that may result in response 1;ime degradation. *
  • Increases additional resource expenditures on activities that may not*

be transferrable to the production system.

  • Increases the number of documents needing reprocessing if moved to the new agency document management system.
  • Requires the pu,rchase of additional software licenses for the prototype software platform that may be discarded when the production system is implemented (cost of license is $13.SX).

ATTACHMENT 4 FQNCTXQNS/TASKS DEFERRED UNTIL PRODUCTION SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION

1. Load.and link Rule/~oposed Rules to SRM that approved publication in Federal Register (275 new documents).
2. Develop a training class in the ITS Lab for COTS.
3. Insert number of pages for each document. (new fielded data item)

This will require the download and reload of all documents.

4. Improve user interface for issuing searches.
s. Evaluate more cost effective option(s) for linking documents.
6. Add the ability to combine searches by permitting the selection of more than one issue at the lowest menu level.
7. Placing images of non-scannable material such as charts, graphs, and

.engineering drawings into the COTS.

8. Development of a Security Plan for the COTS prototype. Without a Security Plan, no classified or restricted documents can be placed in the COTS.
9. Provide automated usage statistics.
10. Make Policy Statements, $tatutes and CFRs available from Subject Screen.
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML18129A011&oldid=2406008"